DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 9 July 2026.
Claims 9 July 2926 have been amended.
The 112 (a) rejection for claim 8 has been overcome by amendments.
The 112 (b) rejections for claims 1-10 have been overcome by amendments.
Claims 4, 5, and 7-10 have been cancelled.
Claims 11-22 have been added.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 11-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 July 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on pages 14 and 15 of their response, “Applicant respectfully submits that, as amended, the claims are not directed merely to organizing human activity or to a mental process. The claims now recite a specific computer-implemented technical workflow in which data generated by customer groups, entities, geographical area networks, and application databases is processed by defined software modules, including a timers calculation module (22), a notification determination module (23), a last possible date and best common date and time calculation module (24), a premium tour or activity groups auto-organizing module (31), a premium tour or activity auto-booking module (32), and an entities benefits calculation and attribution module (33). In certain embodiments further defined by the dependent claims, the source data used by these modules comprises categorization output generated by the machine learning customer and other entities categorization engine (21). These modules cooperate to automate entity selection, notification timing, group formation, common date/time calculation, booking, and economic reconciliation across a distributed networked environment. In particular, amended claim 1 recites processing by a machine learning customer and other entities categorization engine, determining notification targets by a notification determination module, calculating and initiating timers by a timers calculation module, calculating a last possible date and best common date and time by a specific date/time calculation module, auto-organizing customer groups by an auto-organizing module, auto-booking by an auto-booking module, and calculating credits/refunds and entity benefits by an entities benefits calculation and attribution module. These are not steps that can practically be performed in the human mind at the claimed scale and with the claimed data dependencies across application servers, database servers, communication networks, geographical area networks, customer groups, and entity categories.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “Applicant respectfully submits that, as amended, the claims are not directed merely to organizing human activity or to a mental process. The claims now recite a specific computer-implemented technical workflow in which data generated by customer groups, entities, geographical area networks, and application databases is processed by defined software modules, including a timers calculation module (22), a notification determination module (23), a last possible date and best common date and time calculation module (24), a premium tour or activity groups auto-organizing module (31), a premium tour or activity auto-booking module (32), and an entities benefits calculation and attribution module (33),” the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, with respect to the Applicant’s general argument, it is noted that the Applicant has not addressed any actual elements of the claims themselves, and instead merely referenced data that is generated by customers, entities, geographic area networks, and databases which is processed by modules. As such, the Applicant’s attempt to argue the claims do not recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas is deemed not persuasive, as it does not address any actual claim elements themselves. Additionally, it is noted that with regards to the use of said modules and databases not preventing claims from reciting an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” (Emphasis added). Further MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) states, “An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.” (Emphasis added). Further MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states, “Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the MPEP makes clear that the Courts have shown that invoking the use of a computer in a claim does not prevent it from reciting an abstract idea; and thus, the Applicant argument that the claims do not recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas because it recites processing data using modules is deemed not persuasive. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that, “In certain embodiments further defined by the dependent claims, the source data used by these modules comprises categorization output generated by the machine learning customer and other entities categorization engine (21). These modules cooperate to automate entity selection, notification timing, group formation, common date/time calculation, booking, and economic reconciliation across a distributed networked environment,” the Examiner notes that the dependent claims have no bearing on whether the independent claim recites an abstract idea; and thus, arguing that the dependent claims restrict the independent claim, without amending the independent claim to include those elements, is deemed not persuasive at showing the independent claim does not recite an abstract idea. Further, it is noted that automating steps that would otherwise be done manually, does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Notably, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) states as an example of this, “Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).” As such, the Applicant’s argument with regards to automating entity selection, notification timing, group formation, common date/time calculation, booking, and economic reconciliation across a distributed networked environment, as a reason for eligibility is deemed not persuasive. Third, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “amended claim 1 recites processing by a machine learning customer and other entities categorization engine, determining notification targets by a notification determination module, calculating and initiating timers by a timers calculation module, calculating a last possible date and best common date and time by a specific date/time calculation module, auto-organizing customer groups by an auto-organizing module, auto-booking by an auto-booking module, and calculating credits/refunds and entity benefits by an entities benefits calculation and attribution module. These are not steps that can practically be performed in the human mind at the claimed scale and with the claimed data dependencies across application servers, database servers, communication networks, geographical area networks, customer groups, and entity categories,” the Examiner is not persuaded. With regards to the claims, the Examiner notes that the claims state, “receiving, through a frontend software application, a request (40) from a customer group to create a premium tour or activity in an area or region associated with a graphical area network (6, 12, 13, 14), the request (40) comprising at least an identification of the premium tour or activity, one or more selected dates and times, and minimum and maximum occupancy information; obtaining source data relating to entities associated with the geographical area network (6, 12, 13, 14), the source data comprising one or both of: (i) data relating to the entities stored in the one or more database servers (2), and (ii) categorization output generated by a machine learning customer and other entities categorization engine (21); determining, by a notification determination module (23), based at least on the source data, a first set of entities to notify (41) in a creation process of the premium tour or activity; notifying the first set of entities by means of a communications network (5); determining and initiating, by a timers calculation module (22), at least one timer (42) for to facilitate the creation process, based at least on a notification event, the source data, and data relating to the area or region; receiving, before expiration of the at least one timer (42), one or more joining requests from one or more additional customer groups (43), each joining request comprising selected dates and times for joining the premium tour activity; when a minimum participation threshold (45) has not been reached, determining, by the notification determination module (23), at least one additional set of entities to notify, and notifying the at one additional set off entities (44); calculating, by a last possible date and best common date and time calculation module (24), based at least on the selected dates and times received from the first customer group and the one or more additional customer groups and data stored in the one or more database servers (2), a last possible date and time and a best common date and time for the premium tour or activity; auto-organizing, by a premium tour or activity groups auto-organizing module (31), the first customer group and the one or more additional customer groups when the minimum participation threshold (45) is reached and the best common date and time is available; auto-booking, by a premium tour or activity auto-booking module (32), the premium tour or activity with a tour operator at the best common date and time (46, 47); calculating, by an entities benefits calculation and attribution module (33), credits or refunds (48) for customer groups that paid different prices per person and benefits attributable to one or more entities involved in the creation process; and notifying all involved parties of successful scheduling of the Premium Tour or Activity (49), or, when the premium tour activity cannot be booked at a common date and time, notifying all involved parties and initiating refund processes (50).” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s claims recite receiving a request to create a tour or activity in an area or region for some time period with some occupancy rules, obtaining source data relating to entities associated with the geographic area network, determining a set of entities to notify in the creation process of the tour or activity notifying the entities, determining and initiating a timer for the creation process, receiving joining requests with preferred times from additional customer groups before the expiration of the timer, notifying additional entities if the minimum hasn’t been reached, calculating a last possible date and time and a best common date and time for the tour or activity to be scheduled based on received selections, organizing the customer groups when the minimum threshold has been reached and the best common date is available, booking the tour or activity with an operator at the best common date and time, calculating credits or refunds to customers groups, notifying parties about successful scheduling or when the tour or activity cannot be booked at a common date and time, and initiating a refund in the event of a failure to book. As shown here, these claim elements can be performed mentally, as it encompasses processes that can practically be performed in the human mind (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Notably, the Applicant’s argument regarding, “at the claimed scale,” nothing in the claims shows any kind of scale beyond a customer group (e.g. could be two people), a geographic area (e.g. could be a neighborhood or town), entities (e.g. could be two customers), an additional customer group (e.g. could be one or two more customers), an operator (e.g. one service provider); and thus, the claimed scale is not an overly complex system. Further, as discussed above, merely invoking the use of computers or performing the otherwise abstract idea in a computer environment, does not prevent the claim from reciting an abstract idea under step 2A prong one. Finally, it further notes that with regards to the Applicant’s argument that these steps cannot be performed in the human mind, it is noted that this analysis is only relevant to evaluating the claims as to whether the recite elements that fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas; and in fact, is not relevant to determining whether the claims recite elements that fall under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which the Applicant has failed to actually address, outside the conclusory argument that was addressed above. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 15 of their response, “The amended claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to solving a specific technical coordination problem arising in a distributed networked environment: how to dynamically determine which entities should be notified, when further notification events should be triggered, how multiple customer groups with different date/time selections can be automatically organized, how a best common date/time and last possible date/time can be calculated, how the premium tour or activity can be auto-booked, and how credits, refunds, and entity benefits can be calculated and attributed after booking or cancellation. The original disclosure explains that the process uses application servers, database servers, file servers, communication networks, ML recommendation/categorization engines, and distributed geographical area networks to perform these operations.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “The claims are directed to solving a specific technical coordination problem arising in a distributed networked environment: how to dynamically determine which entities should be notified, when further notification events should be triggered, how multiple customer groups with different date/time selections can be automatically organized, how a best common date/time and last possible date/time can be calculated, how the premium tour or activity can be auto-booked, and how credits, refunds, and entity benefits can be calculated and attributed after booking or cancellation,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In particular, with respect to the argument regarding a distributed networked environment, the Examiner notes that the claims merely invoke using computers, servers, and a communications network as tools used by parties to carry out the claimed invention, and various modules as tools to carry out the recited abstract idea. With respect to this, MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” (Emphasis added). Notably, the claims do not encompass any elements directed towards how distributed networks communicate or any specific architecture involved in distributed networks, and instead merely uses generic computer elements as tools to carry out the abstract idea; and thus, the Applicant’s argument that the claims are directed towards a technical coordination problem arising in a distributed networked environment is deemed not persuasive. Further, with regards to the argument that the claims are directed towards, “how to dynamically determine which entities should be notified, when further notification events should be triggered, how multiple customer groups with different date/time selections can be automatically organized, how a best common date/time and last possible date/time can be calculated, how the premium tour or activity can be auto-booked, and how credits, refunds, and entity benefits can be calculated and attributed after booking or cancellation,” the Examiner notes that these elements are the identified abstract idea, as discussed above, and thus would not be additional elements that would integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Further, it is noted that the determining which entities should be notified, determining when further notification events should be triggered, determining how to organize multiple customer groups with different date/time selections, determining how a best common date/time and last possible date/time can be calculated, determining how the premium tour or activity can be booked, and determining how credits/refunds/benefits can be calculated and attributed after booking or cancellation, are not features of a distributed network, but instead are elements of managing commercial activities and are elements that can be performed mentally. Thus, the Applicant’s argument that the claims address specifically a coordination problem arising in a distributed networked environment is not persuasive, as the claims address problems in the abstract idea. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that, “The original disclosure explains that the process uses application servers, database servers, file servers, communication networks, ML recommendation/categorization engines, and distributed geographical area networks to perform these operations,” the Examiner notes that this argument is no persuasive. In particular, it is noted that the Applicant’s argument is merely a conclusory statement that the specification discloses using generic computer elements as tools, which does not render integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as discussed above. Further, it is noted that the Applicant has failed to provide any explanation as to why the recited abstract idea would be integrated into a practical application with the use the argued hardware elements, and thus, the Applicant’s argument is merely conclusory and not persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 15 of their response, “The claimed operations are also not reasonably characterized as mental processes. While a person could theoretically make isolated decisions about whom to invite or when to schedule a tour, the amended claims require a networked process that receives data from multiple customer groups, determines entities to notify through a notification determination module (23), calculates timers through a timers calculation module (22), recalculates common date/time availability through a date/time calculation module (24), and performs auto-organization and auto-booking through dedicated software modules (31, 32). The claimed ordered combination therefore concerns a computer-implemented coordination mechanism operating on distributed data, not merely observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion performed in the human mind.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With regards the Applicant’s argument that the claims do not recite a “Mental Process” the Examiner notes that this argument was addressed above. Notably, with respect to the discussion regarding MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), which showed that performing an otherwise mental process in a computer environment did not prevent the claim from reciting a ”Mental Process.” Further, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) provides further guidance on this topic, specifically identifying examples of this instance, such as, “Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.” (Emphasis added). In this instance, merely invoking the use of a networked process, does not prevent the claims from reciting a “Mental Process,” as this merely encompasses performing the abstract idea in a computer environment. Further, as noted above, MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” (Emphasis added). As shown here, the MPEP makes clear that the use of generic computer elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea and perform their ordinary tasks, does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. As such, the Applicant’s arguments are deemed not persuasive; and the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant has amended the claim to state, “determining and initiating, by a timers calculation module (22), at least one timer (42) for to facilitate the creation process, based at least on a notification event, the source data, and data relating to the area or region.” The Applicant has failed to provide a written description that would convey to one of ordinary skill they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In particular, the Applicant has failed to disclose that timers are determined based on a notification event, the source data, and data relating to the area or region. Notably, paragraph 55 of the Applicant’s published specification states, “The algorithm to establish these timers is dynamic, and as said before, takes in consideration the first possible date and/or time for the Private Tour or Activity to take place, as well as other variables like for example but not limited to the Area the Customer is at, the speed in which more groups are joined to the premium tour, number of potential customers of a Reseller and its establishments, a direct agreement with the Reseller, number of “direct” Software app users Traveling in the Area, their traveling tastes, category or categories they fit in, and in GDPR or similar regulated areas, if the customer chose to (opt in) to be notified, etc., This computer implemented method also depends on de inputs received from Machine Learning (ML) Customer and other Entities (like Resellers, etc.) Categorization Engine(s).” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s specification does not set forth or describe basing the timer on source data or a notification event. Appropriate correction is required. It is noted that claims 2-3, 6, 11-22 depend on claim 1, and therefore are rejected via dependency.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant has amended the claim to state, “calculating, by an entities benefits calculation and attribution module (33), credits or refunds (48) for customer groups that paid different prices per person and benefits attributable to one or more entities involved in the creation process.” The Applicant has failed to provide a written description that would convey to one of ordinary skill they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In particular, the Applicant has failed to disclose that calculating benefits attributable to one or more entities involved in the creation process. Appropriate correction is required. It is noted that claims 2-3, 6, 11-22 depend on claim 1, and therefore are rejected via dependency.
With respect to claim 12 the Applicant claims, “wherein the timers calculation module (22) calculates an expiration time for the at least one timer (42) based on a nature of the notification event, the source data, data relating to entities notified or to be notified, and data relating to the area or region.” The Applicant has failed to provide a written description that would convey to one of ordinary skill they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In particular, the Applicant has failed to disclose that timers are determined based on a notification event, the source data, and data relating to the area or region. Notably, paragraph 55 of the Applicant’s published specification states, “The algorithm to establish these timers is dynamic, and as said before, takes in consideration the first possible date and/or time for the Private Tour or Activity to take place, as well as other variables like for example but not limited to the Area the Customer is at, the speed in which more groups are joined to the premium tour, number of potential customers of a Reseller and its establishments, a direct agreement with the Reseller, number of “direct” Software app users Traveling in the Area, their traveling tastes, category or categories they fit in, and in GDPR or similar regulated areas, if the customer chose to (opt in) to be notified, etc., This computer implemented method also depends on de inputs received from Machine Learning (ML) Customer and other Entities (like Resellers, etc.) Categorization Engine(s).” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s specification does not set forth or describe basing the timer on source data or a notification event. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 19, the Applicant claims, “A data processing system for organizing customer groups in a premium tour or activity (47), the data processing system comprising: one or more processors; one or more client computing devices configured to execute a frontend software application; one or more application servers (1); one or more database servers (2); and one or more non-transitory memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more client computing devices and the one or more application servers (1) to perform the computer-implemented process according to claim 1.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has directed the claim towards “a data processing system,” that is a statutory class of an “an apparatus,” however they have further recited that it performs the process described in claim 1, that is a statutory class of “a method.” This recitation renders the claim indefinite and unclear, as it remains unclear as to whether the claim is directed towards a statutory class of “an apparatus,” a statutory class of “a method,” or a combination of the two (which is not permitted). Additionally, it remains unclear if this claim is an independent claim, or if it is a dependent claim and depends upon claim 1 (similar to claims 2-3, 6, 11-18, 21, and 22). For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to be an independent claim, and to read, A data processing system for organizing customer groups in a premium tour or activity (47), the data processing system comprising: one or more processors; one or more client computing devices configured to execute a frontend software application; one or more application servers (1); one or more database servers (2); and one or more non-transitory memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more client computing devices and the one or more application servers (1) to: …” wherein the elements of the body in claim 1 are listed.
With respect to claim 20, the Applicant claims, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a data processing system comprising one or more client computing devices, one or more application servers (1), and one or more database servers (2), cause the data processing system to perform the computer-implemented process according to claim 1.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has directed the claim towards “A non-transitory computer-readable medium,” that is a statutory class of an “an article of manufacture,” however they have further recited that it is suitable for carrying out the process described in claim 1, and performs the steps described in claim 1 that is a statutory class of “a method.” This recitation renders the claim indefinite and unclear, as it remains unclear as to whether the claim is directed towards a statutory class of “an article of manufacture,” a statutory class of “a method,” or a combination of the two (which is not permitted). Additionally, it remains unclear if this claim is an independent claim, or if it is a dependent claim and depends upon claim 1 (similar to claims 2-3, 6, 11-18, 21, and 22). For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to be an independent claim, and to read, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a data processing system comprising one or more client computing devices, one or more application servers (1), and one or more database servers (2), cause the data processing system to perform…” wherein the elements of the body in claim 1 are listed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite receiving, through a frontend software application, a request (40) from a customer group to create a premium tour or activity in an area or region associated with a graphical area network (6, 12, 13, 14), the request (40) comprising at least an identification of the premium tour or activity, one or more selected dates and times, and minimum and maximum occupancy information; obtaining source data relating to entities associated with the geographical area network (6, 12, 13, 14), the source data comprising one or both of: (i) data relating to the entities stored in the one or more database servers (2), and (ii) categorization output generated by a machine learning customer and other entities categorization engine (21); determining, by a notification determination module (23), based at least on the source data, a first set of entities to notify (41) in a creation process of the premium tour or activity; notifying the first set of entities by means of a communications network (5); determining and initiating, by a timers calculation module (22), at least one timer (42) for to facilitate the creation process, based at least on a notification event, the source data, and data relating to the area or region; receiving, before expiration of the at least one timer (42), one or more joining requests from one or more additional customer groups (43), each joining request comprising selected dates and times for joining the premium tour activity; when a minimum participation threshold (45) has not been reached, determining, by the notification determination module (23), at least one additional set of entities to notify, and notifying the at one additional set off entities (44); calculating, by a last possible date and best common date and time calculation module (24), based at least on the selected dates and times received from the first customer group and the one or more additional customer groups and data stored in the one or more database servers (2), a last possible date and time and a best common date and time for the premium tour or activity; auto-organizing, by a premium tour or activity groups auto-organizing module (31), the first customer group and the one or more additional customer groups when the minimum participation threshold (45) is reached and the best common date and time is available; auto-booking, by a premium tour or activity auto-booking module (32), the premium tour or activity with a tour operator at the best common date and time (46, 47); calculating, by an entities benefits calculation and attribution module (33), credits or refunds (48) for customer groups that paid different prices per person and benefits attributable to one or more entities involved in the creation process; and notifying all involved parties of successful scheduling of the Premium Tour or Activity (49), or, when the premium tour activity cannot be booked at a common date and time, notifying all involved parties and initiating refund processes (50).
The limitations of receiving a request from a customer group to create a premium activity in an area associated with a graphical area network that comprises at least an identification of the premium tour or activity, one or more selected dates and times, and minimum and maximum occupancy information; obtaining source data relating to entities associated with the geographical area network that comprises comprising data relating to the entities stored or categorization output generated by a machine learning engine; determining a first set of entities to notify in a creation process of the premium activity based at least on the source data; notifying the first set of entities; determining and initiating a timer to facilitate the creation process based at least on a notification event, the source data, and data relating to the area or region; receiving joining requests from an additional customer group, before expiration of the at least one timer which includes selected dates and times for joining the premium tour activity; determining additional entities to notify and notifying the at one additional set off entities when a minimum participation threshold has not been reached; calculating a last possible date and time and a best common date and time for the premium activity based at least on the selected dates and times received from the first customer group and the additional customer groups and data stored in the one or more database servers; organizing the first customer group and the one or more additional customer groups when the minimum participation threshold is reached and the best common date and time is available; booking the premium activity with a tour operator at the best common date and time; calculating credits or refunds for customer groups that paid different prices per person and benefits attributable to one or more entities involved in the creation process; and notifying all involved parties of successful scheduling of the premium activity, or notifying all involved parties and initiating refund processes when the premium tour activity cannot be booked at a common date and time; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass managing commercial activities (sales activities, business relations, marketing), and elements that can be performed in the human mind. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (computer, application servers, database servers, software application, categorization engine, various modules, processors, client computing devices, non-transitory memory), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, receiving a request from a customer group to create a premium tour or activity in an area or region, obtaining source data about entities in a region, determining entities to notify in a creation process of tours and activities and notifying them, determining and initiating necessary timers to facilitate the creation process, determining a timer to facilitate the creation process and receiving requests to join the activity, notifying additional entities as needed so that the tour or activity gains sufficient participants, calculating a last possible date and a best common date for scheduling the activity, organizing the groups when a minimum participation threshold is reached and the best common date is available, booking the activity; encompass an organizer requesting to a tour/activity for a group, identifying entities to invite to join the group and inviting them, starting a deadline timer for the entities to joining to reach a minimum threshold number, notifying more entities as needed to reach the threshold, determining a best date/time to schedule the tour and scheduling the tour, notifying the group of the scheduled date/time, and booking the activity when the best date is available and the minimum threshold is reached; which encompasses the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations, and marketing). In addition, the claims further recite if a common day and time is no longer available, notifying all parties and initiating refund processes, calculating credits to refund in the event eventual different prices per person are paid by the different groups that joined and the reseller benefits, and initiating refund processes as necessary; which encompasses determining refunds and benefits for entities in the group based on the tour no longer being available due to scheduling issues; which encompasses the management of commercial activity (sales activities, business relations, and marketing). As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, the claims recite, receiving a request from a customer group to create a premium tour or activity in an area or region, obtaining source data about entities in a region, determining entities to notify in a creation process of tours and activities and notifying them, determining and initiating necessary timers to facilitate the creation process, determining a timer to facilitate the creation process and receiving requests to join the activity, notifying additional entities as needed so that the tour or activity gains sufficient participants, calculating a last possible date and a best common date for scheduling the activity, organizing the groups when a minimum participation threshold is reached and the best common date is available, booking the activity; encompass an organizer requesting to a tour/activity for a group, identifying entities to invite to join the group and inviting them, starting a deadline timer for the entities to joining to reach a minimum threshold number, notifying more entities as needed to reach the threshold, determining a best date/time to schedule the tour and scheduling the tour, notifying the group of the scheduled date/time, booking the activity when the best date is available and the minimum threshold is reached; notifying all involved parties of successful scheduling of the premium tour or activity and notifying all parties and initiating refund processes if a best day and time is no longer available, calculating credits to refund in the event eventual different prices per person are paid by the different groups that joined and the reseller benefits; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (computer, application servers, database servers, software application, categorization engine, various modules, processors, client computing devices, non-transitory memory), as tools to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-3, 6, 11-18, 21, and 22, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite the types of entities and the types of resellers, which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 2). In addition, the claims further recite the type of area or regions, which merely narrows the field of use, and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 3). In addition, the claims further recite using generic computer elements (Internet, internet network, servers, engines), as tools to carry out the abstract idea; and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 6). In addition, the claims further recite categorizing parties and activities and using this for source data, which encompasses managing commercial activities (sales activities, business relations, marketing), and elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion); thus the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 11). Further, the claims recite the use of “machine learning techniques,” which is recited at a high level of generality and merely encompasses “apply it,” and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 11). In addition, the claims further recite calculating an expiration time for the timer based on factors; which encompasses managing commercial activities (sales activities, business relations, marketing), and elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion); thus the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 12). In addition, the claims further recite the what outcomes encompass a notification event; which encompasses managing commercial activities (sales activities, business relations, marketing), and elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion); thus the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 13). In addition, the claims further recite recalculating the best common date and time when new groups join; which encompasses managing commercial activities (sales activities, business relations, marketing), and elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion); thus the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 14). In addition, the claims further recite attempting to book the activity at multiple dates and times based on availability; which encompasses managing commercial activities (sales activities, business relations, marketing), and elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion); thus the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 15). In addition, the claims further recite the type of refund of credits provided, and how the refunds or credits will be given, which merely narrows the field of use; and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claims 16 and 17). In addition, the claims further recite calculating benefits to parties based on participation parties; which encompasses managing commercial activities (sales activities, business relations, marketing), and elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion); thus the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 18). In addition, the claims further recite the type of geographic region, which merely narrows the field of use; and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 21). In addition, the claims further recite types of computer devices a client can use; which merely further recites “apply it” and narrows the field of use; and thus does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea (claim 22).
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-3, 6, and 11-22 are allowed over the prior art of record, however remain rejected under other statutes. With respect to claim 1, the claim elements, “determining and initiating, by a timers calculation module (22), at least one timer (42) for to facilitate the creation process, based at least on a notification event, the source data, and data relating to the area or region; receiving, before expiration of the at least one timer (42), one or more joining requests from one or more additional customer groups (43), each joining request comprising selected dates and times for joining the premium tour activity; when a minimum participation threshold (45) has not been reached, determining, by the notification determination module (23), at least one additional set of entities to notify, and notifying the at one additional set off entities (44); calculating, by a last possible date and best common date and time calculation module (24), based at least on the selected dates and times received from the first customer group and the one or more additional customer groups and data stored in the one or more database servers (2), a last possible date and time and a best common date and time for the premium tour or activity; auto-organizing, by a premium tour or activity groups auto-organizing module (31), the first customer group and the one or more additional customer groups when the minimum participation threshold (45) is reached and the best common date and time is available; auto-booking, by a premium tour or activity auto-booking module (32), the premium tour or activity with a tour operator at the best common date and time (46, 47);” when viewed as an ordered combination, are determined to be novel and non-obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)-272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
28 September 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
